PDA

View Full Version : Poverty in America Is Mainstream


TonyR
11-06-2013, 09:39 AM
Few topics in American society have more myths and stereotypes surrounding them than poverty, misconceptions that distort both our politics and our domestic policy making.

They include the notion that poverty affects a relatively small number of Americans, that the poor are impoverished for years at a time, that most of those in poverty live in inner cities, that too much welfare assistance is provided and that poverty is ultimately a result of not working hard enough. Although pervasive, each assumption is flat-out wrong.

Contrary to popular belief, the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is exceedingly high. My research indicates that nearly 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line during that period ($23,492 for a family of four), and 54 percent will spend a year in poverty or near poverty (below 150 percent of the poverty line).

Even more astounding, if we add in related conditions like welfare use, near-poverty and unemployment, four out of five Americans will encounter one or more of these events.

In addition, half of all American children will at some point during their childhood reside in a household that uses food stamps for a period of time.

Put simply, poverty is a mainstream event experienced by a majority of Americans. For most of us, the question is not whether we will experience poverty, but when. Read the rest here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/poverty-in-america-is-mainstream/?_r=0

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-06-2013, 10:01 AM
https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/178925_4140363470828_1105415882_n.jpg

Pony Boy
11-06-2013, 12:10 PM
Thank you Walmart for employing 1% of the US population.

But not for long, I did notice that Walmart in investing in automated check-out systems so it can radically reduce its need for cashiers. Yes, we really need to eliminate these poverty level jobs and get the poor souls off food stamps and on unemployment and welfare where they belong.

TonyR
11-06-2013, 12:12 PM
Interested to hear whether or not you read the article, Pony. Because it shoots holes in a lot of the myths you and several other "right leaning" people perpetuate here. I'm surprised by the lack of reaction and commentary.

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 12:51 PM
Income is a dumb way to try to quantify poverty. As was alluded to in another thread, are retired NFL players 'unemployed' or in 'poverty' just because they're not working?

But the food stamp trend is troubling. Part of it is economic, but a big untalked about part is cultural.

Stigma was part and parcel of the food stamp program only a decade or two ago. Growing up, had my family ever been eligible (quite possible) we would've probably starved before applying. Maybe exaggerating. Slightly. :)

Anyway, accepting public welfare is much less frowned upon than it used to be. Plus the electronic food stamp cards make it a lot less tell-tale and intrusive.

TonyR
11-06-2013, 12:55 PM
Income is a dumb way to try to quantify poverty. As was alluded to in another thread, are retired NFL players 'unemployed' or in 'poverty' just because they're not working?

Fair point, understood. But, I'd bet that a vast majority of people are pushed into something at least approximating "poverty" when they lose their employment since a vast majority of people need regular income to pay their bills. In other words, most people live paycheck to paycheck, or close to it.

Rohirrim
11-06-2013, 01:55 PM
Hopefully, another state will legalize gay marriage. :puff:

alkemical
11-06-2013, 02:27 PM
Thank you Walmart for employing 1% of the US population.

But not for long, I did notice that Walmart in investing in automated check-out systems so it can radically reduce its need for cashiers. Yes, we really need to eliminate these poverty level jobs and get the poor souls off food stamps and on unemployment and welfare where they belong.

You do realize that a chunk of walmart's workforce is put on public assistance due to walmarts benefits policies, right?

Not to mention the subsidies that walmart receives FOR business. I don't know if the ROI is worth shopping at walmart.

Rohirrim
11-06-2013, 02:32 PM
Forbes Richest Top Ten in America
Rank Name Net Worth Age Residence Source
1 Bill Gates
$72 B 58 Medina, Washington Microsoft
2 Warren Buffett
$58.5 B 83 Omaha, Nebraska Berkshire Hathaway
3 Larry Ellison
$41 B 69 Woodside, California Oracle
4 Charles Koch
$36 B 78 Wichita, Kansas diversified
4 David Koch
$36 B 73 New York, New York diversified
6 Christy Walton & family
$35.4 B 58 Jackson, Wyoming Wal-Mart
7 Jim Walton
$33.8 B 65 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
8 Alice Walton
$33.5 B 64 Fort Worth, Texas Wal-Mart
9 S. Robson Walton
$33.3 B 69 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
10 Michael Bloomberg
$31 B 71 New York, New York Bloomberg LP

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 03:06 PM
You do realize that a chunk of walmart's workforce is put on public assistance due to walmarts benefits policies, right?

Not to mention the subsidies that walmart receives FOR business. I don't know if the ROI is worth shopping at walmart.

How about vending machines? Are they worth the ROI?

The quest for artificially high wages is ultimately counterproductive.

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 03:18 PM
How about vending machines? Are they worth the ROI?

The quest for artificially high wages is ultimately counterproductive.

The problem is your definition of "artifically high" seems to be "enough to make a decent living for an honest day's work".

Wal-Mart abuses the social safety net to boost profits. The only way they can continue to operate the way they do is because the public picks up their slack. Without that, they'd have to actually pay a decent wage.

Of course, at this point you'll probably responds "SEE, public assistance is a horrible thing!" or some such nonsense, which misses the point entirely.

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 03:22 PM
The problem is your definition of "artifically high" seems to be "enough to make a decent living for an honest day's work".

Wal-Mart abuses the social safety net to boost profits. The only way they can continue to operate the way they do is because the public picks up their slack. Without that, they'd have to actually pay a decent wage.

Of course, at this point you'll probably responds "SEE, public assistance is a horrible thing!" or some such nonsense, which misses the point entirely.

No, the point is either the glass is half empty or it's half full.

What's better... an employed checker making enough to cover at least some of their needs.

Or an unemployed checker replaced by a machine and who has no real marketable non-automatible skills while sitting at home and relying completely on public assistance?

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 03:24 PM
Wal-Mart: where you go to buy a $3 widget for $2.75 because you're to dimwitted to understand you're paying an additional $.50 to in taxes on "discounted" that item to support the workers on the public dole.

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 03:25 PM
No, the point is either the glass is half empty or it's half full.

What's better... an employed checker making enough to cover at least some of their needs.

Or an unemployed checker replaced by a machine and who has no real marketable non-automatible skills while sitting at home and relying completely on public assistance?

You're attempting to conflate technological progress with abuse of the social safety net. They are not the same thing.

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 03:27 PM
Wal-Mart: where you go to buy a $3 widget for $2.75 because you're to dimwitted to understand you're paying an additional $.50 to in taxes on "discounted" that item to support the workers on the public dole.

So if I underpay them, I owe extra. If I fire them and put in a robot, I'm a hero. LOL

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 03:45 PM
So if I underpay them, I owe extra. If I fire them and put in a robot, I'm a hero. LOL

Ahh, being obtuse as usual I see.

Wal-Mart has employees that they currently actually need, but don't pay them what it would take for them to stay with Wal-Mart. Instead they rely on public subsidy to provide the difference in compensation.

This is nothing like the situation where an entire job description is simply no longer needed.

alkemical
11-06-2013, 03:46 PM
How about vending machines? Are they worth the ROI?

The quest for artificially high wages is ultimately counterproductive.

Which has what to do with subsiding walmart and putting people on tax payers dimes?

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 03:47 PM
Which has what to do with subsiding walmart and putting people on tax payers dimes?

Nothing, and BB knows it. He just likes to be obtuse. Or he really is that vapid. Not really sure TBH.

alkemical
11-06-2013, 03:48 PM
Nothing, and BB knows it. He just likes to be obtuse. Or he really is that vapid. Not really sure TBH.

I wish my business would get subsidies and then i could put my employees on welfare due to the fact they don't make enough. It would keep my bottom line FAT!

Arkie
11-06-2013, 03:51 PM
https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/178925_4140363470828_1105415882_n.jpg

Alice Walton’s primary philanthropic activity is as a board member of the Walton Family Foundation. She has been active on the Board of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences at Little Rock and the Board of Advisors for the University of Arkansas Graduate Business School at Fayetteville.
In 1996, the University of Arkansas established the Alice L. Walton Chair in Finance, allowing the university, through its College of Business Administration, to pursue educational excellence on a national and international level. Walton's vision led to the creation of Camp War Eagle, a Christian summer camp in Northwest Arkansas that brings together children of differing socio-economic backgrounds.

I would rather people like Alice pay for our art museums instead of taxpayers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/crystal-bridges-museum-of-art-alice-walton_n_1081448.html
The Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art is regarded as the nation's most important new art museum in a generation, offering the type of exhibits more commonly found in New York or Los Angeles.

http://alicewalton.org/slideshow_images/TIME_Magazine_names_Alice_Walton_one_of_worlds_100 _most_influential_people.jpg
http://cdn.cnwimg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/crytal-bridges-art-museum.jpg

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 03:53 PM
Ahh, being obtuse as usual I see.

Wal-Mart has employees that they currently actually need, but don't pay them what it would take for them to stay with Wal-Mart. Instead they rely on public subsidy to provide the difference in compensation.

This is nothing like the situation where an entire job description is simply no longer needed.

What you don't realize is that it's often a sliding scale and involves a cost/benefit analysis.

If you passed a law tomorrow saying checkers had to make $25 an hour, Walmart would suddenly "not need" virtually all of them. And that's obviously not because the technology didn't already exist to replace them.

Automation isn't free. It has its own headaches. But the more artificially expensive you make the human alternative, the more attractive automation becomes.

And you'd look at the 2 or 3 checkers left behind making $25 an hour and say "Hey that's great!" Meanwhile, you don't sweat the 50 that got sent home permanently to effectively become wards of the state.

houghtam
11-06-2013, 03:54 PM
Nothing, and BB knows it. He just likes to be obtuse. Or he really is that vapid. Not really sure TBH.

Why do you think I've stopped arguing with him? He brings absolutely nothing to the table except what you just described. He hasn't engaged in a single honest argument, nor has he answered a single direct question since he started posting here.

Example:

"Beavis, boxers or briefs?"

"Well, if you want to talk about underwear, you should consider how much crotch sweat the average American excretes in a day. Of course you wouldn't know because liberals are a bunch of bra-burners."

"WTF?"

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 03:58 PM
Alice Walton’s primary philanthropic activity is as a board member of the Walton Family Foundation. She has been active on the Board of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences at Little Rock and the Board of Advisors for the University of Arkansas Graduate Business School at Fayetteville.
In 1996, the University of Arkansas established the Alice L. Walton Chair in Finance, allowing the university, through its College of Business Administration, to pursue educational excellence on a national and international level. Walton's vision led to the creation of Camp War Eagle, a Christian summer camp in Northwest Arkansas that brings together children of differing socio-economic backgrounds.

I would rather people like Alice pay for our art museums instead of taxpayers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/crystal-bridges-museum-of-art-alice-walton_n_1081448.html


http://alicewalton.org/slideshow_images/TIME_Magazine_names_Alice_Walton_one_of_worlds_100 _most_influential_people.jpg
http://cdn.cnwimg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/crytal-bridges-art-museum.jpg

A lot more good could be done if she got her family company to pay its employees fairly. Less taxes, fewer people on public assistance. The only party "hurt" would be her.

I would rather people like Alice first make their money honestly rather than try to assuage their guilt with pet projects.

houghtam
11-06-2013, 04:02 PM
A lot more good could be done if she got her family company to pay its employees fairly. Less taxes, fewer people on public assistance. The only party "hurt" would be her.

I would rather people like Alice first make their money honestly rather than try to assuage their guilt with pet projects.

Yeah, and for every dollar she and her family drop into "pet projects" like these, they drop $10 into projects like trying to destroy the public education system and prop up hate groups like the Family Research Council.

Rohirrim
11-06-2013, 04:15 PM
A lot more good could be done if she got her family company to pay its employees fairly. Less taxes, fewer people on public assistance. The only party "hurt" would be her.

I would rather people like Alice first make their money honestly rather than try to assuage their guilt with pet projects.

Pet projects they put their name on and get tax write-offs for.

nyuk nyuk
11-06-2013, 04:24 PM
Thank you Walmart for employing 1% of the US population.

But not for long, I did notice that Walmart in investing in automated check-out systems so it can radically reduce its need for cashiers. Yes, we really need to eliminate these poverty level jobs and get the poor souls off food stamps and on unemployment and welfare where they belong.

Grant amnesty and see even more unemployment.

As such, why just bitch about Wal Mart?

Rohirrim
11-06-2013, 04:24 PM
The Right Wing ideologues will never get it, but historians know. The only reason this kind of wealth disparity and this rigged-game economics are allowed to stand is because the propaganda (and the bread and circuses) are good enough to keep the blinders on the 90% who are getting ****ed. At some point, as it always does, the blinders come off. Who knows? Maybe Marx was right? Maybe the greed of the capitalist is incurable? All I know is, the mega-rich in America are sawing off the branch upon which they are sitting.

I certainly don't favor this kind of class war, as it will be bloody and extremely nasty, and once started, nobody can control where such things end up. I would prefer some form of democratic socialism that ensures every American a square deal, but given what I see right now, out of control capitalism and cronyism, I think it is inevitable. Like Warren Buffett said, of course there is a class war going on in America, "...and my side is winning."

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 04:34 PM
What you don't realize is that it's often a sliding scale and involves a cost/benefit analysis.

If you passed a law tomorrow saying checkers had to make $25 an hour, Walmart would suddenly "not need" virtually all of them. And that's obviously not because the technology didn't already exist to replace them.

Automation isn't free. It has its own headaches. But the more artificially expensive you make the human alternative, the more attractive automation becomes.

And you'd look at the 2 or 3 checkers left behind making $25 an hour and say "Hey that's great!" Meanwhile, you don't sweat the 50 that got sent home permanently to effectively become wards of the state.

Technological replacement of labor is inevitable (it's practically my job description), but not today (and certainly not in the past).

But again, you're making up a bullsh*t definition of "artificially expensive". The simple fact is Wal-Mart operates dishonestly (currently and for many years) by abusing the public treasury to increase its already high profits. Why should we subsidize Wal-Mart's profits? What benefit is there to society to do that?

Just how painful is the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously complaining about people being on public assistance while defending one of the biggest reasons for increase in reliance on public assistance?

Does the fiction of thinking you're getting a good deal shopping at Wal-Mart have a side effect of and inability to think critically about the situation?

Arkie
11-06-2013, 04:37 PM
Pet projects they put their name on and get tax write-offs for.

Sometimes tax write-offs are good. The small state of Arkansas could never get a museum like Crystal Bridges from the government. She's choosing where her money goes.

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 04:40 PM
Sometimes tax write-offs are good. The small state of Arkansas could never get a museum like Crystal Bridges from the government. She's choosing where her money goes.

She's actually choosing where YOUR tax dollars go, without ANY input from you (other than whether or not you choose to shop at tax payer subsidized "private enterprises").

Arkie
11-06-2013, 04:46 PM
She's actually choosing where YOUR tax dollars go, without ANY input from you.

I still think of it as her money. If she did listen to my input, I would agree that she should keep it in the state.

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 04:51 PM
I still think of it as her money. If she did listen to my input, I would agree that she should keep it in the state.

You don't mind that a large chunk of her money comes for public subsidization of her already highly profitable "private" enterprise?

How can someone so vehemently against taxation and public assistance turn a blind eye to such abuses? It defies all reason.

alkemical
11-06-2013, 04:54 PM
Bingo! You can't be for "free markets" and support government subsidies. Oh wait...you can in Murica land.

"Get rid of subsidies, just not mine!"

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 05:33 PM
Still love the illogic of "paying your needed employees a wage that will allow you to retain them instead of relying on public subsidy of your compensation" == "artificially high pay"

:rofl:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-06-2013, 07:30 PM
You don't mind that a large chunk of her money comes for public subsidization of her already highly profitable "private" enterprise?

How can someone so vehemently against taxation and public assistance turn a blind eye to such abuses? It defies all reason.

Funny, isn't it?

These far right loons never let up about how horrible welfare is, but they have no problem subsidizing Sprawl-Mart's employees with their tax dollars.

Talk about a bunch of confused little fellas. :D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-06-2013, 07:37 PM
Pet projects they put their name on and get tax write-offs for.

It's an "impression management" strategy as well.

That is, vulture capitalists like the Waltons or the Koch Bros hope philanthropic gestures will blunt criticism of their malfeasance and wrongdoing in other arenas.

Right-wing brownie hounds are all too happy to point to such gestures in their efforts to give these schmucks a free pass.

http://www.bartcop.com/troops-stamps-cuts-4-vets.jpg

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 08:03 PM
Still love the illogic of "paying your needed employees a wage that will allow you to retain them instead of relying on public subsidy of your compensation" == "artificially high pay"

:rofl:

Yeah. You owe them an arbitrary "living wage" or you owe 'em nothin'.

Can't wait 'til you guys get this stuff figured out. I'm going to become a portrait artist and demand my living wage. It'd be pretty awful. Stick figures mostly. I'm pretty terrible at art. But since we're not worried about whether the work is worth the wage anymore, I figure what the hell, you owe me. LOL

Rohirrim
11-06-2013, 08:41 PM
It's going to be an interesting day when the wakeup call finally arrives at the doorsteps of the tools.

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 11:40 PM
Yeah. You owe them an arbitrary "living wage" or you owe 'em nothin'.

Can't wait 'til you guys get this stuff figured out. I'm going to become a portrait artist and demand my living wage. It'd be pretty awful. Stick figures mostly. I'm pretty terrible at art. But since we're not worried about whether the work is worth the wage anymore, I figure what the hell, you owe me. LOL

If I require an employee, I damn well better pay them enough to retain their services. If I don't, I'll go out of business.

Unless I can convince someone else *cough*taxpayers*cough* to help me pay his wage that is. Then I can have my cake and eat it too, and the expense of society of course. But **** society, greed is good!

What's so difficult for you to understand about that?

Meck77
11-07-2013, 01:01 AM
The Right Wing ideologues will never get it, but historians know. The only reason this kind of wealth disparity and this rigged-game economics are allowed to stand is because the propaganda (and the bread and circuses) are good enough to keep the blinders on the 90% who are getting ****ed. At some point, as it always does, the blinders come off. Who knows? Maybe Marx was right? Maybe the greed of the capitalist is incurable? All I know is, the mega-rich in America are sawing off the branch upon which they are sitting.

I certainly don't favor this kind of class war, as it will be bloody and extremely nasty, and once started, nobody can control where such things end up. I would prefer some form of democratic socialism that ensures every American a square deal, but given what I see right now, out of control capitalism and cronyism, I think it is inevitable. Like Warren Buffett said, of course there is a class war going on in America, "...and my side is winning."

Uh that's already been tried. It doesn't get any bloodier. Warren's side sure is winning. The 1 percent loves Obama. http://imageshack.com/a/img853/6149/uhbh.jpg (http://imageshack.com/i/npuhbhj)Uploaded with ImageShack.com (http://imageshack.com)

BroncoBeavis
11-07-2013, 07:35 AM
If I require an employee, I damn well better pay them enough to retain their services. If I don't, I'll go out of business.

Unless I can convince someone else *cough*taxpayers*cough* to help me pay his wage that is. Then I can have my cake and eat it too, and the expense of society of course. But **** society, greed is good!

What's so difficult for you to understand about that?

Not sure if you're aware of this, but in the aggregate, employers compete for the most in-demand workers.

If you artificially inflate the price of workers in lower demand, you do two things. You drive up the wages of those workers actually in heavy demand. And you put the workers in lower demand out of work. Via automation, offshoring, etc.

Which only accentuates the income disparity, and renders whole swaths of people completely (as opposed to maybe partially) dependent on the state.

Wage inflation is not a zero sum game. At the end of the day, the government isn't paying those people. You are. You're paying the Walmart workers. You're paying farm workers. You're paying teachers, and plumbers, and on and on.

Artificially raising their wages means your wages don't go as far as they once did (and neither do theirs) As usual, the Democrats have a real seen vs unseen problem with this concept.

"More money is good, so let's mandate more money for everyone!" That's essentially what you're saying. What you're missing is the big picture about where that money ultimately comes from.

Que the easy-money Corporate conspiracy theories and neo-pitchfork brigade. :)

Fedaykin
11-07-2013, 08:08 PM
Not sure if you're aware of this,


Oh look, another silly, failed attempt to condescend.


but in the aggregate, employers compete for the most in-demand workers.


Which is exactly what I am saying. Want to retain employees, you have two options:

a.) pay them enough to keep them from going else ware (what's needed in a healthy market).

b.) use your market power to crush the competition, making yourself the only employer option for lots of folks. Then boost your margins by relying on public subsidy of your payroll since your employees have no other option. Finally, convince average rubes that you're a net benefit because the number on your receipt is a bit lower for a few things (nevermind that their tax bill just increased as much if not more than the "discount") Laugh all the way to the bank in the caymens. aka, The Wal-Mart Way (TM)

pricejj
11-07-2013, 08:41 PM
Who knows? Maybe Marx was right? Maybe the greed of the capitalist is incurable?

Finally admits he's a communist.

Rohirrim
11-07-2013, 08:44 PM
Finally admits he's a communist.

You don't have to keep coming back and proving what a dumb **** you are. Nobody has any doubts.

pricejj
11-07-2013, 08:44 PM
use your market power to crush the competition, making yourself the only employer option for lots of folks.

One of primary duties of a government is to create conditions in which free-market economies can exist.

And it's one of the primary failures of the Obama administration, who only seeks to destroy competition with crony capitalism, subsidies, and government control.

pricejj
11-07-2013, 08:51 PM
You don't have to keep coming back and proving what a dumb **** you are. Nobody has any doubts.

Says the village communist.

The only thing good about Karl Marx is that he's dead. Since you haven't bothered to read any history books, let me be the spoiler. Communism led to at least 10 million deaths in Soviet Russia, and resolute poverty for the remainder of the non-ruling class.

Get a freaking clue, comrade.

Rohirrim
11-07-2013, 08:52 PM
Uh that's already been tried. It doesn't get any bloodier. Warren's side sure is winning. The 1 percent loves Obama. http://imageshack.com/a/img853/6149/uhbh.jpg (http://imageshack.com/i/npuhbhj)Uploaded with ImageShack.com (http://imageshack.com)

Stalin came waaaay after the fact. He was just a thug who was cunning and vicious enough to slash through the tiers of thugs above him until he could seize complete control. Like I said, once the **** hits the fan, nobody can control where it ends up. The Russians wanted to free themselves from a bunch of greedy aristocrats and ended up under the heels of bloody tyrants. That's why societies should be designed in such a way as to avoid extremes, especially the kind of ideological extremes espoused by the Tea Party brew of secessionists, moral absolutists, religious fanatics and anarchists.

houghtam
11-07-2013, 08:53 PM
One of primary duties of a government is to create conditions in which free-market economies can exist.

And it's one of the primary failures of the Obama administration, who only seeks to destroy competition with crony capitalism, subsidies, and government control.

Wrong.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3961440&postcount=48

Actually, our government was founded to, "... form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

It doesn't say anything in there about free market economies. In fact, it doesn't mention economies of any kind whatsoever.

Rohirrim
11-07-2013, 08:59 PM
Says the village communist.

The only thing good about Karl Marx is that he's dead. Since you haven't bothered to read any history books, let me be the spoiler. Communism led to at least 10 million deaths in Soviet Russia, and resolute poverty for the remainder of the non-ruling class.

Get a freaking clue, comrade.

That you think Stalinism is the same as communism shows what an idiot you are. I've given my views on the impractical utopianism that communism represents numerous times on this forum. But you don't care about actual debate. You're just one of those mindless little fascist parrots of the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh herd who can do little but fling names around while enjoying all the narcissistic delights of a juvenile scribbling on a **** house wall.

pricejj
11-07-2013, 09:15 PM
That you think Stalinism is the same as communism shows what an idiot you are. I've given my views on the impractical utopianism that communism represents numerous times on this forum. But you don't care about actual debate. You're just one of those mindless little fascist parrots of the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh herd who can do little but fling names around while enjoying all the narcissistic delights of a juvenile scribbling on a **** house wall.

Stalin was a tool that Communists used to implement their will on the people. As far as debate and Communism go. All the facts are there. It doesn't work.

No, it's not because of the "impractical utopia". It's simply because the ideals which Communism is against human nature. If people have no incentive to work, to create, to invent, or prosper...they won't. Communism is against human nature.

I know you're against capitalism. What you fail to realize, is that the U.S. Constitution has created the most free, prosperous, and creative civilization on the history of earth. Your perceived corporate injustices are primarily due to the inability of government to perform it's basic duties. Instead, the US government has chosen to deliberately create wealth disparity with Socialist policies (which will never work).

Rohirrim
11-07-2013, 09:42 PM
Stalin was a tool that Communists used to implement their will on the people. As far as debate and Communism go. All the facts are there. It doesn't work.

No, it's not because of the "impractical utopia". It's simply because the ideals which Communism is against human nature. If people have no incentive to work, to create, to invent, or prosper...they won't. Communism is against human nature.

I know you're against capitalism. What you fail to realize, is that the U.S. Constitution has created the most free, prosperous, and creative civilization on the history of earth. Your perceived corporate injustices are primarily due to the inability of government to perform it's basic duties. Instead, the US government has chosen to deliberately create wealth disparity with Socialist policies (which will never work).

Wrong again. I'm opposed to laissez faire capitalism - the Randian capitalism espoused by the leaders of the Tea Party, like the Koch Bros, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. I'm opposed to corporate controlled capitalism that doesn't even create capital, but rather just churns paper to create wealth completely disconnected from the nuts and bolts economy that sustains a society. Well regulated capitalism works just fine. Corporate power has now reached such an extent that they simply buy the government they want, as we saw clearly in the Glass/Steagle debacle and are watching right now as Citigroup rewrites Dodd/Frank.

Wealth disparity is created by greed, not government. Our government is failing because of an extremely well financed, corporate, libertarian assault on its legitimate functions going all the way back to the Powell memo. Back to the days when Reagan launched the propaganda motto, "The government is the problem." Wrong. A government no longer answerable to the people is the problem. Follow the money. In the last few years, 95% of the "recovery" has gone to 1% of the people. That's says all anybody needs to know. This economy no longer serves the needs of the majority of its people.

Oh, and BTW, Stalin was never the tool of anybody. That's like saying the Huns used Attila as a tool.

Rohirrim
11-08-2013, 07:17 AM
A shocking collection of facts here. America should be ashamed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/americas-greatest-shame-c_b_4238566.html

TonyR
11-08-2013, 07:31 AM
...the US government has chosen to deliberately create wealth disparity with Socialist policies...

lol You must have skipped this article I posted in the Scrooge McDucks thread. Give it a thorough, thoughtful read.

http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/Scrooge-McDucks.aspx

Rohirrim
11-08-2013, 07:36 AM
lol You must have skipped this article I posted in the Scrooge McDucks thread. Give it a thorough, thoughtful read.

http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/Scrooge-McDucks.aspx

Nothing penetrates the bubble.

Pony Boy
11-08-2013, 09:44 AM
Nothing penetrates the bubble.

Last month I played in a golf tournament at Hot Springs Village a 26,000 acres private gated community with unparalleled security. Nine beautiful golf courses and fantastic fishing lakes.

It's just like living in a zombie proof bubble and nothing penetrates the bubble. But I guess we should hate the people that live there, right? I'm sure they didn't work hard and invest wisely to get there, they must have made their money off the backs of the unprivileged, probably all retired Walmart or Tyson executives.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pXGAPAvJn5M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TonyR
11-08-2013, 10:01 AM
But I guess we should hate the people that live there, right?

No, not at all. I'm not sure why you think that's what anyone thinks or how anyone feels. Not remotely the point.

B-Large
11-08-2013, 10:34 AM
Why do you think I've stopped arguing with him? He brings absolutely nothing to the table except what you just described. He hasn't engaged in a single honest argument, nor has he answered a single direct question since he started posting here.

Example:

"Beavis, boxers or briefs?"

"Well, if you want to talk about underwear, you should consider how much crotch sweat the average American excretes in a day. Of course you wouldn't know because liberals are a bunch of bra-burners."

"WTF?"

this might be the single funnist post ever.

BroncoBeavis
11-08-2013, 10:57 AM
this might be the single funnist post ever.

Hough is the OM's largest adherent to the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" school of debate.

When he doesn't get answers, it's because he's not asking intellectually honest questions.

Simple as that.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-08-2013, 11:08 AM
Nothing penetrates the bubble.

Yep.

Bill Maher does a great job of explaining why:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZJ__RoBtv_0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rohirrim
11-08-2013, 12:24 PM
Last month I played in a golf tournament at Hot Springs Village a 26,000 acres private gated community with unparalleled security. Nine beautiful golf courses and fantastic fishing lakes.

It's just like living in a zombie proof bubble and nothing penetrates the bubble. But I guess we should hate the people that live there, right? I'm sure they didn't work hard and invest wisely to get there, they must have made their money off the backs of the unprivileged, probably all retired Walmart or Tyson executives.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Rohirrim
11-08-2013, 12:28 PM
Yep.

Bill Maher does a great job of explaining why:



"These people do not care what the truth is." Bingo!

houghtam
11-08-2013, 01:17 PM
Hough is the OM's largest adherent to the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" school of debate.

When he doesn't get answers, it's because he's not asking intellectually honest questions.

Simple as that.

That's hilarious.

Beavis.

Accusing someone of being intellectually dishonest.

Beavis.

LOL

Requiem
11-08-2013, 01:27 PM
Beavis, 2x + 8 = 10.

What does X equal?

pricejj
11-08-2013, 08:16 PM
lol You must have skipped this article I posted in the Scrooge McDucks thread. Give it a thorough, thoughtful read.

http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/Scrooge-McDucks.aspx

Another article complaining about the 1%? Spare me. The Obama administration already instituted a MASSIVE tax increase on this group Jan. 2013.

I'm talking about individual freedom's, not sure what you're talking about.

peacepipe
11-08-2013, 08:25 PM
Another article complaining about the 1%? Spare me. The Obama administration already instituted a MASSIVE tax increase on this group Jan. 2013.

I'm talking about individual freedom's, not sure what you're talking about.really!? All this time I thought it was GWB for not making his tax cuts permanent. you should thank Obama for keeping the rest of the tax cuts in place.

peacepipe
11-08-2013, 08:26 PM
Hough is the OM's largest adherent to the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" school of debate.

When he doesn't get answers, it's because he's not asking intellectually honest questions.

Simple as that.and here you are proving houghtams point.

houghtam
11-08-2013, 08:26 PM
Another article complaining about the 1%? Spare me. The Obama administration already instituted a MASSIVE tax increase on this group Jan. 2013.

I'm talking about individual freedom's, not sure what you're talking about.

More tripe from (one of) the resident tripe-spewers.

pricejj
11-08-2013, 08:32 PM
Wrong again. I'm opposed to laissez faire capitalism - the Randian capitalism espoused by the leaders of the Tea Party, like the Koch Bros, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. I'm opposed to corporate controlled capitalism that doesn't even create capital, but rather just churns paper to create wealth completely disconnected from the nuts and bolts economy that sustains a society. Well regulated capitalism works just fine. Corporate power has now reached such an extent that they simply buy the government they want, as we saw clearly in the Glass/Steagle debacle and are watching right now as Citigroup rewrites Dodd/Frank.

Wealth disparity is created by greed, not government. Our government is failing because of an extremely well financed, corporate, libertarian assault on its legitimate functions going all the way back to the Powell memo. Back to the days when Reagan launched the propaganda motto, "The government is the problem." Wrong. A government no longer answerable to the people is the problem. Follow the money. In the last few years, 95% of the "recovery" has gone to 1% of the people. That's says all anybody needs to know. This economy no longer serves the needs of the majority of its people.

Oh, and BTW, Stalin was never the tool of anybody. That's like saying the Huns used Attila as a tool.

You are grossly misinformed comrade.

Overzealous Keynsesian government spending and crony capitalism have created (and continue to create) massive wealth disparity. Ever hear of inflation? People either have assets or they don't. If you don't have assets and only hold worthless paper money. You are poor. End of story. The value of the dollar has dropped 98% since the Federal Reserve was instituted.

You complain about the last few years of government policy (stimulus, bailouts, etc.) and actually have the GALL to attribute this to Libertarian's? WTF?

The few Libertarian's that there are in congress vote against those policies everytime the Socialists try to pass them. Libertarian's want to audit the federal reserve, and eliminate crony capitalism.

Libertarian's are against debt-accumulation, and all policies that create wealth disparity. You have no clue what you're even talking about. Do you actually believe the crap you type? Good lord, man.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-08-2013, 08:38 PM
>>Overzealous Keynsesian government spending and crony capitalism have created (and continue to create) massive wealth disparity.<<

A Bush chicken head lecturing us about "crony capitalism?"

Priceless! ROFL!

TonyR
11-08-2013, 08:57 PM
Another article complaining about the 1%? Spare me.

"Complaining"? Seriously?!? Do you happen to know who William H. Gross is? I don't think you read the essay. And if you did it clearly went way over your head.

pricejj
11-08-2013, 09:08 PM
"Complaining"? Seriously?!? Do you happen to know who William H. Gross is? I don't think you read the essay. And if you did it clearly went way over your head.

I speedily read "waa waa 1%". Only a guy like you could continue to post crap about how it's all the 1%ers fault, after the President you voted for enriched them, and raised taxes on them, with his minion Bernanke printing dollars like mad the entire time.

I am highly sick and tired of the 1% propaganda. Your party created these conditions. Live with it, or quit voting for the Socialists. Go cry on someone else's shoulder. I have been warning you about the Democrats policies all along.

pricejj
11-08-2013, 09:12 PM
A Bush chicken head lecturing us about "crony capitalism?"

Priceless! ROFL!

I have told you no less than 100 times that I didn't vote for Bush, moron.


Might want to put some gingko biloba in with your crystal meth. Never underestimate the power of short-term memory.

houghtam
11-08-2013, 09:18 PM
I have told you no less than 100 times that I didn't vote for Bush, moron.


Might want to put some gingko biloba in with your crystal meth. Never underestimate the power of short-term memory.

Your post says I didn't vote for Bush.

Your post history says you gave him blowies.

pricejj
11-08-2013, 10:11 PM
Your post says I didn't vote for Bush.

Your post history says you gave him blowies.

Cool, search until you find one. And don't come back until you do. I won't hold my breath.


LOL Bush?? Really? You guys need some new material.

"He's talking about our failed policies, that he warned us about. DEFLECT!!"

BroncoBeavis
11-09-2013, 03:42 AM
Beavis, 2x + 8 = 10.

What does X equal?

Thanks for the perfect illustration of the kind of question that's not worth bothering with.

Why answer a question when the asker isn't genuinely interested in the answer?

The difference between arguing and debate.

alkemical
11-09-2013, 05:31 AM
Thanks for the perfect illustration of the kind of question that's not worth bothering with.

Why answer a question when the asker isn't genuinely interested in the answer?

The difference between arguing and debate.


You don't debate, you just regurgitate talking points and don't do research.

BroncoBeavis
11-09-2013, 07:24 AM
You don't debate, you just regurgitate talking points and don't do research.

"11 katrillion majillion in Corporate Welfare!"

Have a look in the mirror. LOL

Rohirrim
11-09-2013, 08:33 AM
You are grossly misinformed comrade.

Overzealous Keynsesian government spending and crony capitalism have created (and continue to create) massive wealth disparity. Ever hear of inflation? People either have assets or they don't. If you don't have assets and only hold worthless paper money. You are poor. End of story. The value of the dollar has dropped 98% since the Federal Reserve was instituted.

You complain about the last few years of government policy (stimulus, bailouts, etc.) and actually have the GALL to attribute this to Libertarian's? WTF?

The few Libertarian's that there are in congress vote against those policies everytime the Socialists try to pass them. Libertarian's want to audit the federal reserve, and eliminate crony capitalism.

Libertarian's are against debt-accumulation, and all policies that create wealth disparity. You have no clue what you're even talking about. Do you actually believe the crap you type? Good lord, man.

Bull****. This disaster was caused by deregulation. Specifically, deregulation of the financial sector. Deregulation is the hallmark of laissez faire capitalism. LF capitalism is the hallmark of libertarianism, according to Ayn Rand who stated that there should be a separation between capitalism and state as meaningful as the separation of church and state. Once again, because libertarianism is nothing more than an ideological construct, every time one of its facets is implemented and proves to be a disaster, the libertarians simply blame somebody else and move the goalposts. Why? Because libertarianism is perfect and the only reason it fails is because it is not wholly and perfectly implemented, or some other such bull****. Or, the next thing the libertarian will tell you is, Ayn Rand doesn't speak for us. :rofl:

Like Humpty Dumpty said, "My words mean whatever I want them to mean."

What we are experiencing now is a massive failure of capitalism. And it's not the first time it's happened.

cutthemdown
11-09-2013, 08:47 AM
Beavis, 2x + 8 = 10.

What does X equal?

x=9 genius

cutthemdown
11-09-2013, 08:48 AM
LOL I googled it req. :)

Rohirrim
11-09-2013, 09:00 AM
Wouldn't x = 1?

pricejj
11-09-2013, 10:55 AM
Bull****. This disaster was caused by deregulation.

The Real Estate Bubble was cause by the Clinton Administration mandating ultra-high levels (as a % of overall mortgage lending) of sub-prime mortgages. The US government has been inflating home prices through deregulation, tax rebates, and interest rate manipulation since the 1980's.

You're an idiot, if you claim Libertarian's promote risky lending practices and other disastrous speculative activities of big banks.

The trash you spew is just outright FALSE.

Rohirrim
11-09-2013, 03:22 PM
The Real Estate Bubble was cause by the Clinton Administration mandating ultra-high levels (as a % of overall mortgage lending) of sub-prime mortgages. The US government has been inflating home prices through deregulation, tax rebates, and interest rate manipulation since the 1980's.

You're an idiot, if you claim Libertarian's promote risky lending practices and other disastrous speculative activities of big banks.

The trash you spew is just outright FALSE.

That's the perfect libertarian argument: We support deregulation and the separation of capitalism and state! We are also opposed to all the **** that will create! Ha!

BroncoBeavis
11-09-2013, 03:42 PM
That's the perfect libertarian argument: We support deregulation and the separation of capitalism and state! We are also opposed to all the **** that will create! Ha!

The federal government through Fannie created mortgage backed securities in an effort to make risk look less 'risky'

They then took it a step further and mandated lenders take on a certain percentage of riskier debt.

The problem in this case wasn't the market. It was government encouraging and even reinforcing irrationality in the market.

Fedaykin
11-09-2013, 05:33 PM
The federal government through Fannie created mortgage backed securities in an effort to make risk look less 'risky'

They then took it a step further and mandated lenders take on a certain percentage of riskier debt.

The problem in this case wasn't the market. It was government encouraging and even reinforcing irrationality in the market.

Completely unadulterated bull****, as per usual:

What does Forbes have to say?

"It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

....

Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBC’s Squawkbox, “When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion… how can the ‘deniers’ say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?”

The reason that people can say that is because it is true. The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy.
[/B]"

And's here's an abbreviated list of items from the OFP that lays out the general timeline, major events:

"In 1998, banks got the green light to gamble: The Glass-Steagall legislation, which separated regular banks and investment banks was repealed in 1998. This allowed banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC, i.e. the government, to engage in highly risky business."

"Derivatives were unregulated: Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims."

"The SEC loosened capital requirements: In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks. This exemption replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. This allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs [GS], Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America [BAC]), Lehman Brothers (now defunct) and Bear Stearns (now part of JPMorganChase–[JPM]). These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage left little room for error. By 2008, only two of the five banks had survived, and those two did so with the help of the bailout."

"The federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws. In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks, including anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates increased markedly."

"Private sector lenders fed the demand: These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to relax underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value."

"Commercial banks jumped in: To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks jumped into the game. Employees were compensated on the basis loan volume, not quality."

"Fannie and Freddie jumped in the game late to protect their profits: Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac market share declined. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The government-sponsored enterprises were concerned with the loss of market share to these private lenders — Fannie and Freddie were chasing profits, not trying to meet low-income lending goals."

"Looking at these events it is absurd to suggest, as Bloomberg did, that “Congress forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

Many actors obviously played a role in this story. Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector. But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector. It’s not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, “Let’s abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!” Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers. These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders. And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits.

(emphasis added)


In short: gutting of financial regulations + greed = global financial ****up.

And, the irony is, it IS government at the root of it. Government being taken over by idiotic, libertarian, laissez-faire idealogues who think regulation should be abolished.

And now, after a paultry pullback post recession, it's all starting to go back in that direction, and it WILL blow up in our faces again.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

W*GS
11-09-2013, 05:46 PM
Completely unadultared bull****, as per usual

I've read more than one right-winger blame the whole thing on Franks and Waters - you know, the homo and the N-word.

BroncoBeavis
11-10-2013, 12:05 AM
Completely unadulterated bull****, as per usual:

What does Forbes have to say?

"It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

....

Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBC’s Squawkbox, “When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion… how can the ‘deniers’ say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?”

The reason that people can say that is because it is true. The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy.
[/B]"

And's here's an abbreviated list of items from the OFP that lays out the general timeline, major events:

"In 1998, banks got the green light to gamble: The Glass-Steagall legislation, which separated regular banks and investment banks was repealed in 1998. This allowed banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC, i.e. the government, to engage in highly risky business."

"Derivatives were unregulated: Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims."

"The SEC loosened capital requirements: In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks. This exemption replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. This allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs [GS], Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America [BAC]), Lehman Brothers (now defunct) and Bear Stearns (now part of JPMorganChase–[JPM]). These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage left little room for error. By 2008, only two of the five banks had survived, and those two did so with the help of the bailout."

"The federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws. In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks, including anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates increased markedly."

"Private sector lenders fed the demand: These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to relax underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value."

"Commercial banks jumped in: To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks jumped into the game. Employees were compensated on the basis loan volume, not quality."

"Fannie and Freddie jumped in the game late to protect their profits: Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac market share declined. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The government-sponsored enterprises were concerned with the loss of market share to these private lenders — Fannie and Freddie were chasing profits, not trying to meet low-income lending goals."

"Looking at these events it is absurd to suggest, as Bloomberg did, that “Congress forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

Many actors obviously played a role in this story. Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector. But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector. It’s not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, “Let’s abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!” Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers. These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders. And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits.

(emphasis added)


In short: gutting of financial regulations + greed = global financial ****up.

And, the irony is, it IS government at the root of it. Government being taken over by idiotic, libertarian, laissez-faire idealogues who think regulation should be abolished.

And now, after a paultry pullback post recession, it's all starting to go back in that direction, and it WILL blow up in our faces again.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

Pretty comical you want to paint the bubble as if it all started in 2006. People saw the trouble coming. And it was long before 2006.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/10/the_truth_about_fannie.html

Its beyond definition to fault "the market" for following the business model laid out explicitly by a federally sponsored enterprise.

Fedaykin
11-10-2013, 12:30 AM
Pretty comical you want to paint the bubble as if it all started in 2006. People saw the trouble coming. And it was long before 2006.


LMAO, dive for a strawman, dive for it!

I in no way tried to claim the bubble started in 2006. Learn to read and learn to interact with integrity bub.


Its beyond definition to fault "the market" for following the business model laid out explicitly by a federally sponsored enterprise.

Read my article again (more likely, for the first time). Then demonstrate that you understand what it is saying. Clearly, you don't.

pricejj
11-10-2013, 09:40 AM
The banks ONLY made these loans because they KNEW they could sell the toxic paper to American Taxpayers via a complicit Congress under a direct governmental subprime mandate.

Anybody claiming that Libertarians would make American taxpayers liable for vast amounts toxic mortgage paper is utterly and completely dishonest. It goes COMPLETELY against Libertarian principles.

peacepipe
11-10-2013, 10:13 AM
The banks ONLY made these loans because they KNEW they could sell the toxic paper to American Taxpayers via a complicit Congress under a direct governmental subprime mandate.

Anybody claiming that Libertarians would make American taxpayers liable for vast amounts toxic mortgage paper is utterly and completely dishonest. It goes COMPLETELY against Libertarian principles. you and your liberatarian fantasys. JC, wake up.

pricejj
11-10-2013, 10:34 AM
1. Socialists create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing American taxpayers to underwrite the entire mortgage industry.
2. Then Socialists mandate that American taxpayers underwrite subprime borrowers.
3. Greedy Lenders (seeing the opportunity to make a quick buck) write as many bad loans as they possibly can, and sell them to the American taxpayers making billions and billions of dollars.
4. The Socialists then bail out "too big to fail" institutions who still have remaining toxic paper (not already sold to the American taxpayer).

Make no mistake, the real estate bubble was ENTIRELY created by government intervention in the private real estate market.

You see exactly how apprehensive banks are to lend money if they are liable for losses to be incurred on those loans.

peacepipe
11-10-2013, 11:01 AM
1. Socialists create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing American taxpayers to underwrite the entire mortgage industry.
2. Then Socialists mandate that American taxpayers underwrite subprime borrowers.
3. Greedy Lenders (seeing the opportunity to make a quick buck) write as many bad loans as they possibly can, and sell them to the American taxpayers making billions and billions of dollars.
4. The Socialists then bail out "too big to fail" institutions who still have remaining toxic paper (not already sold to the American taxpayer).

Make no mistake, the real estate bubble was ENTIRELY created by government intervention in the private real estate market.

You see exactly how apprehensive banks are to lend money if they are liable for losses to be incurred on those loans.

you and hobow/****4brains must be sharing notes.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-10-2013, 05:15 PM
1. Socialists create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing American taxpayers to underwrite the entire mortgage industry.
2. Then Socialists mandate that American taxpayers underwrite subprime borrowers.
3. Greedy Lenders (seeing the opportunity to make a quick buck) write as many bad loans as they possibly can, and sell them to the American taxpayers making billions and billions of dollars.
4. The Socialists then bail out "too big to fail" institutions who still have remaining toxic paper (not already sold to the American taxpayer).

Make no mistake, the real estate bubble was ENTIRELY created by government intervention in the private real estate market.

You see exactly how apprehensive banks are to lend money if they are liable for losses to be incurred on those loans.

As usual, you have the facts bass-ackwards...

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

peacepipe
11-10-2013, 05:25 PM
As usual, you have the facts bass-ackwards...

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

price isn't interested in facts,just whatever feeds his fantasy.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-10-2013, 05:36 PM
price isn't interested in facts,just whatever feeds his fantasy.

His entire belief system is flawed, but his emotional commitment to that system prevents him from seeing it.

Rohirrim
11-10-2013, 05:55 PM
Libertarianism is a religion. Like Scientology.

Fedaykin
11-10-2013, 05:58 PM
Libertarianism is a religion. Like Scientology.

Except with less of a grasp on reality than Scientology.

Rohirrim
11-10-2013, 07:37 PM
Except with less of a grasp on reality than Scientology.

Ha! And both were invented by sociopathic drunks.

pricejj
11-11-2013, 11:59 AM
Know this.

They can ignore, deflect, and call names all they want. Progressive Socialists and their harmful policies FAIL and will ALWAYS FAIL.

Why? Because their policies are only meant to control YOU and YOUR money. They are against individual freedom, which creates creativity and prosperity.

Meck77
11-11-2013, 12:02 PM
Know this.

They can ignore, deflect, and call names all they want. Progressive Socialists and their harmful policies FAIL and will ALWAYS FAIL.

Why? Because their policies are only meant to control YOU and YOUR money. They are against individual freedom, which creates creativity and prosperity.

Some MEN prefer freedom. Other men need the government to help them.

W*GS
11-11-2013, 12:09 PM
Such manly men!

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78rcowperthwaite.phtml

BroncoBeavis
11-11-2013, 01:43 PM
As usual, you have the facts bass-ackwards...

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html


Article War!!!

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122212948811465427

Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess

And then of course, we're told that Gummint regulation would have kept all bad things from happening. But in the real world, from 2005 on, concerns were repeatedly raised about the Government's own implicit support of derivatives through their GSEs.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/01/24/8234040/

Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage market, but they don't originate home loans. Instead, they make their money in two major ways. One is conservative: They get a fee for guaranteeing the payments on mortgages they buy, which they then resell to investors, usually in the form of mortgage-backed securities. The more aggressive way is to hold on to the mortgages, assume all the inherent risk, and make money on the spread between their low cost of capital and the higher yield of the mortgage portfolio. (Alan Greenspan would later call this "the big, fat gap.") The more mortgages the GSEs buy, the faster their profits can grow. Since 1995, Fannie and Freddie's holdings of residential debt have grown an average of 20% a year, and together they now carry $1.5 trillion in home loans and mortgage securities on their books--more than the top ten commercial banks combined. Thanks in large part to this growth, Fannie has had double-digit profit gains for the last 17 years--and an average return on equity of 25%. But the GSEs' size has people increasingly worried about what might happen if anything went wrong--and not just to Fannie and Freddie but to the entire financial system.

There is one additional concern: derivatives, which institutions rely on to hedge interest rate risk. Over time, Fannie and Freddie became two of Wall Street's top users of derivatives. Of course, derivatives have their own risks--as America discovered in 1998 when hedge fund Long Term Capital Management blew up--and very nearly brought down the U.S. financial system with it. The idea that its activities might pose a danger infuriates Fannie Mae, which describes itself as "a bulwark of our financial system." For some of its critics, though, Fannie's refusal to acknowledge that its portfolio posed any risk would become the scariest thing of all.

That was written in 2005, BTW.

Anyway, even leaving aside the private market, we can dip into the congressional testimony video where Congress repeatedly shrugged off warnings about what was coming down the road for the supposedly 'regulated' Government Sponsored housing entities.

But our Unicornian Utopian Progressives will continue to tell us if we just leave everything up to Dawd, Fwank and Fwends (again) nothing bad will ever happen. LOL

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-11-2013, 01:50 PM
^

There you go proving once again that facts don't matter to the average right-wing ideologue.

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

BroncoBeavis
11-11-2013, 01:58 PM
^

There you go proving once again that facts don't matter to the average right-wing ideologue.

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

The WSJ article sums it up best...

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.

Now the Democrats are blaming the financial crisis on "deregulation." This is a canard.

You want to ignore the fact that your Government miracle workers didn't even properly rein in the Government Sponsored Entities they had oversight authority over. Yet you're saying they would've kept everything else in line, if only given limitless power to regulate whatever whenever. LOL

pricejj
11-11-2013, 05:59 PM
Want to know how many bad loans greedy banks KNOWINGLY sold to the American Taxpayers? You think they would have made these loans if they couldn't dump them on American taxpayers? Not hardly.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303914304579191990504524748

"In January 2011, Bank of America agreed to a $1.35 billion settlement with Freddie, but that deal included only loans sold by Countrywide. Bank of America's $11.6 billion agreement with Fannie earlier this year included $6.7 billion in loan repurchases. That followed a smaller $1.5 billion deal with Fannie in 2011.

During the third quarter, Freddie reached settlements with Wells Fargo, Citigroup Inc., and SunTrust Banks Inc. worth $1.3 billion combined. Last month, J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to pay $1.1 billion to resolve such claims."


Again, these banks NEVER would have made these risky loans had they not KNOWN that they could SELL these loans to American Taxpayers (Fannie and Freddie), via government programs to socialize losses in the mortgage lending industry.

Libertarians are explicitly AGAINST making American Taxpayers liable to greedy banks and their shady lending practices.

Progressive Socialists are not only IN FAVOR of American taxpayer liability in the mortgage industry, but they heavily promote it, while expanding FHA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae....encouraging banks to sell toxic paper to American taxpayers.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-11-2013, 09:08 PM
Libertarians are explicitly AGAINST making American Taxpayers liable to greedy banks and their shady lending practices.
.

Hilarious!

Quite possibly the funniest statement I've ever read here.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-11-2013, 09:10 PM
The WSJ article sums it up best...



A WSJ op-ed....now there's an unbiased source. :laugh:

Fedaykin
11-11-2013, 10:29 PM
The WSJ article sums it up best...
You want to ignore the fact that your Government miracle workers didn't even properly rein in the Government Sponsored Entities they had oversight authority over. Yet you're saying they would've kept everything else in line, if only given limitless power to regulate whatever whenever. LOL

The regulation that would have prevented the problem WAS in place, but was removed. Glass-Steagall and sane reserve requirements. The banks lobbied to get these regulations removed, and then proceeded to go hog wild.

It's pretty simple. With a sane 12:1 reserve requirement, 8% of mortgages would have had to been in default before the bank would have become insolvent. Instead, that reserve requirement was abolished for the big banks, and they all quickly ramped up to an average of 50:1 leveraging, meaning that only 2% of mortgages had to be in default before the bank became insolvent.

The default rate never got about 4%, even in the worse of the crash.

In other words, with SANE REGULATION REMAINING IN PLACE there would still have been a 4% buffer and the major banks would not have become insolvent from mortgage problems alone.


Of course, with Glass Steagall in place, even the insolvency of the investment banks would have been perhaps manageable, since commercial banks would not have been affected, and YOUR money would have been safe from the insanity going on in the mortgage market. Of course, without that bit of SANE REGULATION, we had no choice but to bail out banks since it's not just the investment banks that go under, it's everyone that has a deposit with those banks since there is no longer a separate between investment and commercial banking.

But, keep up with your stupid commentary. It's quite entertaining to watch you desperately try to defend deregulation and pretend the private sector wasn't the problem.

BroncoBeavis
11-12-2013, 07:35 AM
Hey, if the government's reaction had been.... "Well I guess maybe we went too far changing a system that seemed pretty stable for 70 years, let's reverse course a bit and reenact some of those protections" I could see where you were coming from.

Instead we got the Dawd Fwank Fwiends of Angewo package that didn't really solve anything

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedkaufman/2013/07/18/an-unhappy-birthday-for-dodd-frank-the-too-big-to-fail-problem-gets-bigger/

(except of course give us yet another new unaccountable federal regulatory army)

The Government uses virtually every opportunity to expand its reach. Even in cases where it was 100% complicit in the problem to begin with.

Arkie
11-12-2013, 05:38 PM
In a libertarian society, corporations wouldn't exist.

pricejj
11-12-2013, 05:39 PM
The U.S. Federal Government, knowing that new-home building has been a significant component of a growing economy has been subsidizing the mortgage industry, and inflating housing rates for quite sometime.

Some of the tools used:
1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
3. Mortgage interest tax deduction
4. Interest rate manipulation from the FED
5. Subprime lending mandates
6. First Time Homebuyers Tax Credit
7. Creation of FHA (3.5% down requirement)
8. Purchasing Trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities

Now, American taxpayers are on the hook for >$5T (debt on Fannie and Freddie balance sheet).

Federal government intervention has caused MASSIVE inflation and speculation in the housing sector, and is precisely what caused the crash in '06...and the current run-up in prices.

Rohirrim
11-12-2013, 05:58 PM
The U.S. Federal Government, knowing that new-home building has been a significant component of a growing economy has been subsidizing the mortgage industry, and inflating housing rates for quite sometime.

Some of the tools used:
1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
3. Mortgage interest tax deduction
4. Interest rate manipulation from the FED
5. Subprime lending mandates
6. First Time Homebuyers Tax Credit
7. Creation of FHA (3.5% down requirement)
8. Purchasing Trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities

Now, American taxpayers are on the hook for >$5T (debt on Fannie and Freddie balance sheet).

Federal government intervention has caused MASSIVE inflation and speculation in the housing sector, and is precisely what caused the crash in '06...and the current run-up in prices.

They also subsidize agriculture, energy, automotive, aeronautics, pretty much everything having to do with military technology, railways, etc. etc. etc.

My point being, have all those sectors crashed? No. Did any of them have a massive, bogus derivatives market riding their backs while placing bets on their every transaction? No.

pricejj
11-15-2013, 09:22 PM
They also subsidize agriculture, energy, automotive, aeronautics, pretty much everything having to do with military technology, railways, etc. etc. etc.

My point being, have all those sectors crashed? No. Did any of them have a massive, bogus derivatives market riding their backs while placing bets on their every transaction? No.

1. Housing is an over-inflated asset driven high by speculation and federal guarantees, hence the crash.
2. Government subsidies should be eliminated from agriculture. Paying farmers not to farm in order to increase the price of grain is insane (and costly).
3. The American taxpayers purchase Defense technology from private contractors. If taxpayer funding is cut, there are layoffs (Lockheed 4,000 as we speak).
4. Education costs have been inflated through the roof with taxpayer subsidies.
5. Energy subsidies should be eliminated. In fact much of the subsidies have been to failed businesses.

I am not promoting to remove the 'safety net'. Merely remove government spending from the private sector to keep costs low (free-market principles).

barryr
11-16-2013, 04:46 AM
Poverty is another subject that isn't really important issue until it can be blamed on those evil republicans and the evil corporations that don't donate money to democrats.

pricejj
11-16-2013, 09:10 AM
Poverty is another subject that isn't really important issue until it can be blamed on those evil republicans and the evil corporations that don't donate money to democrats.

The massive increase in wealth disparity that has occurred under the Obama administration can be entirely attributed the big government policies of stimulus and quantitative easing.

In the last 5 years, ALL assets have been priced out of the range of average Americans. The longer current policy prevails, the wider the gap will get.

barryr
11-16-2013, 04:11 PM
The massive increase in wealth disparity that has occurred under the Obama administration can be entirely attributed the big government policies of stimulus and quantitative easing.

In the last 5 years, ALL assets have been priced out of the range of average Americans. The longer current policy prevails, the wider the gap will get.

Which goes to show the democrats stating they are the "party for the little guy" is just plain a myth and has been for years.

peacepipe
11-16-2013, 04:32 PM
The massive increase in wealth disparity that has occurred under the Obama administration can be entirely attributed the big government policies of stimulus and quantitative easing.

In the last 5 years, ALL assets have been priced out of the range of average Americans. The longer current policy prevails, the wider the gap will get.

what crap! wealth disparity? you're talking about the policys such as the GWB tax cuts. the constant push to lower taxes on the rich and the anti-union stance you conservatives push. the fight against raising the minimum wage.
this wealth disparity is your baby,take responsibility for it.

peacepipe
11-16-2013, 04:35 PM
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/post_medium/images/13/11/gop%20for%20dummies.jpg

elsid13
11-16-2013, 04:37 PM
Which goes to show the democrats stating they are the "party for the little guy" is just plain a myth and has been for years.

Yes because things like the Great Society and New Deal, or ObamaCare are myths.

Rohirrim
11-16-2013, 06:39 PM
Yes because things like the Great Society and New Deal, or ObamaCare are myths.

I don't believe that either Obama nor Clinton have any connection to those programs. Chris Hedges is absolutely right. They are "faux" liberals. The Dem party is run by them. They have nothing in common with the Dems that wrote those programs. Clinton was the worst thing that ever happened to wage earning Americans. And Obama, as Hedges points out, has "codified" all the garbage Bush launched after running on the promise of taking apart the abysmal Bush legacy. Like Hedges points out, we are living under an inverted totalitarianism ruled by an entrenched corporate plutocracy.

Clinton and Obama are tools of that status quo. TR and FDR would have fought it tooth and nail. TR properly labeled it, "In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

This is also why it's really stupid to broad brush the Dems with the name of liberal, or liberal progressive. There are truly only a handful of liberal progressives left in the Dem party. I'm surprised they don't leave, like Bernie Sanders, and just declare themselves independents.

Arkie
11-16-2013, 07:47 PM
Yes because things like the Great Society and New Deal, or ObamaCare are myths.

The New Deal's record peacetime deficit spending was great short-term for the depressed 1930s. They made a deal to borrow future consumption to support their present depression. Some of the New Deal programs were supposed to expire like the Bush tax cuts, but they've been in place now for over 70 years. It's not such a good deal because we didn't keep up the other end of the deal. The future cost of these New Deal programs is more than 50 trillion today.

Rohirrim
11-17-2013, 03:02 AM
The New Deal's record peacetime deficit spending was great short-term for the depressed 1930s. They made a deal to borrow future consumption to support their present depression. Some of the New Deal programs were supposed to expire like the Bush tax cuts, but they've been in place now for over 70 years. It's not such a good deal because we didn't keep up the other end of the deal. The future cost of these New Deal programs is more than 50 trillion today.

And a lot of that stuff was predicated on the continued existence of the progressive tax system. Once Reagan gave the richest sector of the population a 50% tax cut, many of the programs began to fail. Of course, that was the whole point of doing it, wasn't it?

barryr
11-17-2013, 04:34 AM
Yes because things like the Great Society and New Deal, or ObamaCare are myths.

Yeah, all of them which such great success.

elsid13
11-17-2013, 05:14 AM
The New Deal's record peacetime deficit spending was great short-term for the depressed 1930s. They made a deal to borrow future consumption to support their present depression. Some of the New Deal programs were supposed to expire like the Bush tax cuts, but they've been in place now for over 70 years. It's not such a good deal because we didn't keep up the other end of the deal. The future cost of these New Deal programs is more than 50 trillion today.

I agree things to needs to be looked at and some laws need to sunset-ed as economic situations have changed. Most of our farming policies are based upon New Deal policies of not growing things, or provide water for farming for areas that shouldn't get it, or how we lease out our mineral rights to the private sector. But I was respond to Barry's post that people only care about the poor when they can blame Republicans for it.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
11-17-2013, 08:00 AM
https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1456558_621343441254478_858537179_n.jpg

pricejj
11-17-2013, 02:12 PM
what crap! wealth disparity? you're talking about the policys such as the GWB tax cuts. the constant push to lower taxes on the rich and the anti-union stance you conservatives push. the fight against raising the minimum wage.
this wealth disparity is your baby,take responsibility for it.

Newsflash, even you're own lying President admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%.

"President Obama has been loud and clear about his fight against income inequality, but he admitted that the rich have fared far better than the poor during his time in the White House."

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/


You have been warned REPEATEDLY about the failed Socialist policies, but you continue to deny their destructive effect on the economy. Will you ever learn anything?

pricejj
11-17-2013, 02:21 PM
Not only that, peacepipe is utterly dishonest. His falsehoods need to be addressed.

Trying to attribute current tax policy to a president who hasn't been in office for 5 years is not only wrong, but completely opposite of fact.

Progressive Socialists passed whatever budget/tax policy they wanted to in the first 2 years of Obama's reign. The U.S. has been operating on a continuing resolution since then, except for the $1T increase on high-income earners in January 2013.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-17-2013, 11:26 PM
Dueling Quotes:

Newsflash, even you're own lying President admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%.




You have been warned REPEATEDLY about the failed Socialist policies, but you continue to deny their destructive effect on the economy. Will you ever learn anything?

L0L!

What a confused little man. :giggle:

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-vs-troops.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-17-2013, 11:32 PM
Newsflash, even you're own lying President admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%.


Hooray!

Capitalism works!

So the only reason right-wingnuts aren't lining up to blow him is because he's not a Republican?

peacepipe
11-18-2013, 06:31 AM
Not only that, peacepipe is utterly dishonest. His falsehoods need to be addressed.

Trying to attribute current tax policy to a president who hasn't been in office for 5 years is not only wrong, but completely opposite of fact.

Progressive Socialists passed whatever budget/tax policy they wanted to in the first 2 years of Obama's reign. The U.S. has been operating on a continuing resolution since then, except for the $1T increase on high-income earners in January 2013.

I haven't pushed any falsehoods,you're just not in touch with reality.

El Minion
11-18-2013, 03:05 PM
Here's How You Know Wages Are Too Low (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/18/walmart_food_drive_retail_giant_is_raising_money_f or_its_own_employees.html)

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/18/walmart_food_drive_retail_giant_is_raising_money_f or_its_own_employees/1384798224.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg
Ohio Walmart

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
11-18-2013, 04:29 PM
https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1463613_10151820175847971_1812460909_n.jpg

Requiem
11-18-2013, 04:39 PM
Charles Barkley is a gambling addict.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-18-2013, 04:42 PM
Charles Barkley is a gambling addict.

Not to mention an idiot who makes sweeping generalizations about poor people who vote Democrat.

No wonder UltimateSpammer identifies with him.

Requiem
11-18-2013, 04:44 PM
Not to mention an idiot who makes sweeping generalizations about poor people who vote Democrat.

No wonder UltimateSpammer identifies with him.

Think of all the good things Barkley could have done with the ten million + that he has lost playing blackjack? Sure could have helped out a lot of poor people. :)

pricejj
11-19-2013, 03:09 PM
I haven't pushed any falsehoods,you're just not in touch with reality.

Are you denying that Democrats are almost completely responsible for current tax policy?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-20-2013, 04:14 PM
Are you denying that Democrats are almost completely responsible for current tax policy?

Were you born yesterday?

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-dark-ages.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-20-2013, 04:26 PM
http://www.bartcop.com/walmart-canned.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-20-2013, 04:38 PM
<big style="font-weight: bold;">http://www.bartcop.com/palin-read-bible_n.jpg</big>

El Minion
11-22-2013, 12:03 PM
Which one's are the true earners and which one's are living off the work of others

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/walmartwelfare_590_413.jpg

pricejj
11-25-2013, 02:14 PM
Were you born yesterday?



Answer the question propaganda boy.

Are you denying that Democrats are almost completely responsible for current tax policy?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-07-2013, 07:43 PM
Answer the question propaganda boy.



Really?

This from a lemming who gets his "facts" from Sean Hannity?

You're a funny little man. :laugh:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-07-2013, 07:44 PM
http://www.bartcop.com/xmas-christians_n.jpg

http://www.bartcop.com/maher-despicable_me.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-07-2013, 07:54 PM
http://www.bartcop.com/ryan-more-4-rich.jpg

pricejj
12-10-2013, 08:36 PM
Really?



Answer the question.

Are you denying that Democrats are almost completely responsible for current tax policy?

houghtam
12-10-2013, 10:11 PM
Hey look who showed up! How's your boy Jared Crick doing these days?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-20-2013, 03:32 PM
Answer the question.

Are you denying that Democrats are almost completely responsible for current tax policy?

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-mess-again.jpg

BroncoBeavis
12-20-2013, 03:44 PM
Ruh Roh Shaggy.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jlaajnj50uiqlfbphys0qq.png

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-20-2013, 03:53 PM
^

Big government, a.k.a. the legislative branch of big business.

Conservatives and their boogeymen. L0L.

Arkie
12-20-2013, 09:37 PM
Big government, a.k.a. the legislative branch of big business.

Conservatives and their boogeymen. L0L.

This is true, and big business is the liberal's boogeyman. Now if we could just get on the same page and fire the politicians in government. It's the only side we have some control over.

Any politician that breaks promises or lies to get elected should be "fired" in the next election. They need money and votes. They promised something to Wall St and special interests for money to get elected. They promised something else to the people to get votes. They know which promise they're going to break from the beginning.

BroncoBeavis
12-21-2013, 05:03 AM
This is true, and big business is the liberal's boogeyman. Now if we could just get on the same page and fire the politicians in government. It's the only side we have some control over.

Any politician that breaks promises or lies to get elected should be "fired" in the next election. They need money and votes. They promised something to Wall St and special interests for money to get elected. They promised something else to the people to get votes. They know which promise they're going to break from the beginning.

Yep. The biggest threat to the republic is the ignorance and apathy of the average American voter. There's no slick legislative fix for that.

barryr
12-21-2013, 07:01 AM
Wait until millions more find out later next year their insurance programs they like are deemed not good enough by the king messiah and have to change and pay more. I doubt that will help poverty.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-21-2013, 04:22 PM
Wait until millions more find out later next year their insurance programs they like are deemed not good enough by the king messiah and have to change and pay more. I doubt that will help poverty.

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-aca-same_n.jpg

http://www.bartcop.com/fox-news-delirium.jpg

mhgaffney
12-21-2013, 05:29 PM
Income is a dumb way to try to quantify poverty. As was alluded to in another thread, are retired NFL players 'unemployed' or in 'poverty' just because they're not working?

But the food stamp trend is troubling. Part of it is economic, but a big untalked about part is cultural.

Stigma was part and parcel of the food stamp program only a decade or two ago. Growing up, had my family ever been eligible (quite possible) we would've probably starved before applying. Maybe exaggerating. Slightly. :)

Anyway, accepting public welfare is much less frowned upon than it used to be. Plus the electronic food stamp cards make it a lot less tell-tale and intrusive.

The really big welfare checks go to the too big to fail banks. You don't have a problem with that?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-22-2013, 03:44 PM
The really big welfare checks go to the too big to fail banks. You don't have a problem with that?

He's willing to overlook that pesky little conflict - just as he does when subsidizing Wal-Mart employees (and every other slave wage worker in America) with his tax dollars.

Being a "conservative" nowadays means being prepared to kneel and bob for the super-rich on command - even when it means abandoning your "principles."

houghtam
12-22-2013, 03:59 PM
He's willing to overlook that pesky little conflict - just as he does when subsidizing Wal-Mart employees (and every other slave wage worker in America) with his tax dollars.

Being a "conservative" nowadays means being prepared to kneel and bob for the super-rich on command - even when it means abandoning your "principles."

Beavis has no principles to abandon.

BroncoBeavis
12-23-2013, 07:11 AM
Beavis has no principles to abandon.

"2/3rds of Walmart workers should get fired so 1/3rd of them can earn Costco Wages. Because we don't want any wards of the state up in here."

-Pinnacle of Progressive Economic Theory LOL

Pony Boy
12-23-2013, 09:58 AM
He's willing to overlook that pesky little conflict - just as he does when subsidizing Wal-Mart employees (and every other slave wage worker in America) with his tax dollars.

We also subsidize thousands of military families that qualify for and receive food stamps.

So tell me what yearly salary should a military soldier that chooses to work on a military base, peel potatoes and throw them into a pot make?
Also what should the average salary be for a guy that changes oil at Walmart or the floor sweeper at K-Mart make that has a family of four to feed?

How much money would make you happy, I want a yearly dollar figure from you?

nyuk nyuk
12-26-2013, 10:52 AM
Don't wail about US poverty when you're importing millions of third worlders to take US jobs and pushing amnesty to give away another 12 million US jobs, okie dokie?

nyuk nyuk
12-26-2013, 10:53 AM
Being a "conservative" nowadays means being prepared to kneel and bob for the super-rich on command - even when it means abandoning your "principles."

That certainly explains why the loudest voices for amnesty are from the Democratic side of the aisle. 12 million US jobs up in smoke.

This corruption is BIPARTISAN.